Las Vegas police, while saying they’re still stumped on the motive behind Sunday night’s massacre at a country music festival, said today that they haven’t found any evidence to indicate Stephen Paddock had political or “radical ideologies” that motivated the attack.
Yeah, he “just snapped.” Over a one-year period, during which he was meticulously planning, preparing, and setting up his little “event,” learning all about guns and how to shoot them with deadly accuracy over a long distance with a bump-stock, which is…uhhh, pretty much impossible.
McMahill said he was “very confident, very certain that there was not another shooter in the room as he conducted this mass murder rampage.”
Which I haven’t seen asserted yet by anyone. Now the FOURTH FLOOR, mind—well, that’s another matter entirely (see numbers 2 and 3). Which we won’t be addressing right now. Or ever, if we can avoid it.
Asked if Paddock had help planning the attack, the undersheriff said that’s why investigators are “combing over this man’s life from birth to death.”
“It’s hard to believe that one individual planned this attack and executed without anybody else knowing anything about it,” McMahill said.
Or, y’know, helping. But you said a mouthful there, bub. In fact, it ain’t just “hard” to believe; it’s damned near impossible at this point.
Investigators are also trying “to understand, to evaluate whether he had any political, any economic, any social, any radical ideologies that may have led him down a particular path,” he said. ISIS has repeatedly claimed this week that Paddock conducted the attack on their behalf.
“What I can confirm to you today is we have found no evidence of any of that as I’m standing before you today,” the undersheriff added.
And by the time you do, Praetorian Media will have dropped this story like the smoking-hot potato it is. As for his motive, it might just be hiding in plain sight:
The fact pattern in this event is striking for not fitting any known profile. In particular:
The gentleman concerned had no known political or religious affiliations.
Well, except for attending anti-Trump rallies, that is. Anyways.
The level of premeditation is unusual and crystal clear from his mass buying of guns and the cautious systematic smuggling operation to ferry them to his room together with the illegal modifications and the position of the room he chose and occupied for several days beforehand.
This denotes a deeply serious commitment to his act. And one which leaves no doubt that act was conceived to generate the maximum possible publicity.
The question then is: ‘publicity’ for what exactly?
And the answer would appear to be ‘nothing that can be identified’.
There is only one plausible motive for what this man did. And here it is:
This man wished to telegraph to America in graphic form the hard irrefutable evidence that guns and gun ownership and the ease of gun purchase in America are an evil and must be controlled. On that hypothesis everything now makes sense. And it must be said his concept has a certain demented genius.
Because even if the public learns and believes that his motive was all about ‘guns’ the horror of the act itself – an act to protest such acts—is in some ways even worse for being plain evidence that there is no limit to the insanity to which guns can be put.
Seems silly enough to be dismissible out of hand, right? But Steyn doesn’t, quite:
So our London analyst is arguing that this was an act of mass murder to protest the ease with which Americans can commit mass murder. I’m reminded of the entirely idiotic Liam Neeson movie from a year or two back, Non-Stop, in which he battles terrorists who’ve hijacked a plane to protest the ease with which terrorists can hijack a plane. At the key moment in the bad-guy monologue, my kids and I burst out laughing. But presumably Universal Pictures found it credible enough to greenlight the project – and, as I recall, most people in the movie theater seemed to be taking it seriously.
At one level, it’s a ludicrous explanation – and yet it has the ruthless logic of a psychopath, of a man who, like a good screenwriter, subordinates all other considerations to the internal logic of an absurd proposition. It’s also a rare explanation that explains everything: the guns in the hotel, the explosive material in the car, the guns in his house, and in his other house, and doubtless in his other other house. To reprise my reader’s joke: He was smuggling suitcases.
And, as our analyst notes, in the void of any motive, the Democrats and media are now talking about the armory – should we restrict the number of guns? the types of guns? the modifications to guns?
If it seems crazy, but it works, then it ain’t crazy.
The gun-grabbers ultimately have a much bigger problem, though, which is this: we’ve now reached a point in this nation where our formerly high-trust society has become one in which nobody trusts anybody at all. Differences in political opinion have now become unbridgeable chasms; authorities and institutions that once enjoyed near-universal trust and respect have been exposed as dishonest, treacherous, and corrupt. Our shared heroes and role models, from cops to professional athletes, are now either feared, despised, or both. Our national government, once perceived as one “of, by, and for the people,” stands revealed as an aggressive, rapacious, grasping entity imposing its malignant designs on an unwilling population by intimidation, coercion, and raw deceit.
In such a climate, what sane 2A supporter would even dream of surrendering his guns to the people who so obviously lust to seize them? As others have said: when they lecture about “reasonable, common sense gun control,” deny any desire to take anyone’s guns away or interfere with the fictitious 2A emphasis on the right to hunt (hint: they don’t like that either), and then in the next breath cite Australia and Britain as the role models we ought to be emulating…well, that ought to tell you all you really need to know about what it is they really hope to achieve.